HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > General Discussion


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted May 10, 2010, 9:56 PM
EastVanMark EastVanMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,604
ALR Keeps Vancouver Land Prices Sky High

Vancouver politicians spend a huge amount of time these days debating ways to house the homeless. But I think they're ignoring another group that also badly needs housing help -- namely young people, especially those with families.

Housing costs here are so high that, for many, the prospects of raising children in the city seem bleak.

They're often well-educated people like Province reader Mathew Fournier and his girlfriend from back east, who both earn more than the so-called living wage of $18 an hour, but wonder whether Vancouver really is the greatest place in Canada, as everybody says.

"Our choice is to continue to be gouged on renting a sardine-can-sized apartment near work or look far up the Fraser Valley for something that is just affordable [and likely buy two cars to commute]," Fournier said in a letter to the editor last week.

I know just where he's coming from. Housing costs were one reason why my son and his wife left Vancouver last year for Montreal. They now live in a town house costing half of what it would here.

Why are prices so high in the Lower Mainland? It's simply supply and demand. Sandwiched between the sea and the mountains, there continues to be a greater demand for land for housing than there is a supply of it.

Compounding that is the Agricultural Land Reserve, introduced by the NDP government in 1973 to restrict housing development. It's driven housing costs by at least 20 per cent, according to one estimate.

For many, of course, the ALR is a sacred cow. They include Richmond city Coun. Harold Steves who, as an NDP MLA, was the architect of the ALR.

A beef farmer, Steves says we have a duty to preserve farmland so we can grow as much local food as possible. And those in the "localism" movement agree with him.

Other farmers, however, believe their right to sell their land for a decent price shouldn't be sacrificed to city folks' romantic notions about going organic.

And I question whether the ALR has actually made the Fraser Valley a more pleasant place to live or simply resulted in a superabundance of large, scraggly looking lots frozen uncomfortably in time.

Besides, some of the intensive farming these days, especially that under acres of glass, is far from pleasing to look at or live beside.

A recent study by the Fraser Institute found the ALR has failed to sustain family farms, but has helped make the Vancouver housing market one of the most expensive in North America.

"The Agricultural Land Reserve is a social engineering experiment gone awry," said report author Diane Katz.

Indeed, I think the ALR may eventually have to be scrapped. But first we need a thorough examination of our mushrooming region's housing -- and farming needs -- and the best way to go about providing them.

If that results in removing large parcels of land from the reserve in the Lower Mainland and replacing them with land elsewhere in B.C., so be it. Affordable housing shouldn't just be for the homeless.



Read more: http://www.theprovince.com/technolog...#ixzz0nZAYnDTH
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted May 10, 2010, 10:04 PM
Yume-sama's Avatar
Yume-sama Yume-sama is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Vancouver / Calgary / Tokyo
Posts: 7,523
It's not just a Vancouver problem, either. People in Kelowna, etc., complain about land being "off-limit" which has forced prices higher by a significant degree.

I think there would be a lot of artificial enviro-outrage if the policies were changed, however.
__________________
Visit me on Flickr! Really! I'm lonely.
http://www.flickr.com/syume
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted May 10, 2010, 10:54 PM
touraccuracy's Avatar
touraccuracy touraccuracy is offline
Registered Loser
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,855
i thought this forum was in favour of building up, not out?

keep the ALR.
__________________
"The modern metropolis is a teeming hive of strung-out dope heads, rapists, home invaders and fine regional cuisine." -Cracked.com
Don't quote me on that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted May 10, 2010, 10:58 PM
WarrenC12 WarrenC12 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: East OV!
Posts: 21,688
Yawn... when real estate tanks we'll here the calls to increase ALR.

The cost of owning real estate is high. The cost of renting (ie housing) has been rather stable.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted May 10, 2010, 11:06 PM
NightHawk's Avatar
NightHawk NightHawk is offline
Beautiful BC
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Lost in a Jungle of glass midrises...
Posts: 293
So a bunch of farmers who bought their land at a cheaper price based on the fact that they CANNOT subdivide become rich while property owners outside of the ALR lose value in their property prices (some mortgaged through their noses in BC) because of the looming dump of newly subdivable land. No thanks.
__________________
This space available for rent...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted May 10, 2010, 11:28 PM
SpikePhanta SpikePhanta is offline
Vancouverite
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,483
I like the ALR, it makes Vancouver unique we aren't like boring Toronto with it's urban sprawl. Not to mention the ALR helps the 100 mile diet.

People shouldn't really complain.
I know I wont come 5-10 years when I will be looking for my own house(condo).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted May 11, 2010, 12:00 AM
cc85 cc85 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Island City
Posts: 451
Toronto has no ALR and has similarly-priced properties.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted May 11, 2010, 12:11 AM
invisibleairwaves's Avatar
invisibleairwaves invisibleairwaves is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 638
Most of those "scraggly-looking lots" aren't on ALR land; they're fair game for developers. The ALR actually covers a relatively small portion of land in Metro Van. It's just a waiting game...land acquisition, approval, demolition, and construction take time.
__________________
Reticulating Splines
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted May 11, 2010, 12:38 AM
Millennium2002 Millennium2002 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,742
I read the article today and I felt.... ohhhh dear.....

To be fair, in some places, there are pieces of land that are not very productive in producing food for the populace.

However, a complete removal of the ALR to just lower home prices would send significant shock waves through the real estate market, bringing it down to its knees. Towers won't be built, and SkyTrain won't go ahead. Instead, there'll be more favouritism towards freeways and suburbia... something that we all know isn't good for us.

In the end, there may be a few places where the land could be better used (or new productive owners put in their place), but the ALR itself shouldn't disappear entirely under a sea of asphalt and concrete.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted May 11, 2010, 1:06 AM
jlousa's Avatar
jlousa jlousa is offline
Ferris Wheel Hater
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 8,371
I'll have some fun with this one. The cities that are least affected by the ALR seem to have the most expensive land ie Vancouver. While the areas the most affected are the cheapest ie the Fraser Valley. So if one wants to argue for cheaper land I suggest we immediately make 2/3rds of Vancouver Agricultural. While it would cause an immediate spike in the land prices initially it would eventually lower prices considerably. Of course I'm not advocating for this but it'd a valid argument.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted May 11, 2010, 1:27 AM
Doug's Avatar
Doug Doug is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 10,047
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpikePhanta View Post
I like the ALR, it makes Vancouver unique we aren't like boring Toronto with it's urban sprawl. Not to mention the ALR helps the 100 mile diet.

People shouldn't really complain.
I know I wont come 5-10 years when I will be looking for my own house(condo).
Seattle has an urban growth boundrary that is somehat lesss rigid than the ALR, similar geographic contraints, much higher incomes and a similar growth rate. How come its housing costs are so much less than Vancouver?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted May 11, 2010, 2:10 AM
Spork's Avatar
Spork Spork is offline
Shoebox Dweller
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,784
Indeed, ALR is not to blame, as I think we can all agree. So what, then, is the reason behind Vancouver's insane real estate prices? We've already decided that foreign real estate investors are also not to blame.

Is it the lack of diversity outside of Vancouver proper that concentrates demand?

Is it the red tape that developers have to go through?

Are we not letting developers build high enough?

Is it the profitable drug trade that is allowing those who would not normally be able to afford housing afford much more?

Is all of our housing clad in granite/stainless/tiled bliss?

Do we not encourage enough sub dividable land options (e.g. row houses)?

What makes us so special?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted May 11, 2010, 2:49 AM
dleung's Avatar
dleung dleung is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 5,976
Too many SFH neighbourhoods that oppose densification, that's all. Too many stupid suburban rules regarding minimum lane and sidewalk widths and setbacks, 80 foot separation mandated between high-rise towers, etc. The Metro can easily shrink in area and gain another couple million people, and it will look a hell of a lot prettier.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted May 11, 2010, 2:51 AM
llamaorama llamaorama is online now
Unicorn Wizard!
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 4,211
I know it is unpopular is build in the mountains because of the natural beauty, but in areas where it would be feasible maybe this is a solution? In Mexico and Latin America they build condo towers up the sides of mountains and its the middle class living in this sort of arrangement. You think such a thing might be possible outside Coquitlam? Like in those cities, cable cars or funiculars would be implemented as mass transit. The canyon with all the quarry pits, along Pipeline Road to the reservior is already pretty scarred, and it wouldn't be impossible to blast away a little more. What do you think?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted May 11, 2010, 3:30 AM
huenthar huenthar is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 294
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug View Post
Seattle has an urban growth boundrary that is somehat lesss rigid than the ALR, similar geographic contraints, much higher incomes and a similar growth rate. How come its housing costs are so much less than Vancouver?
Metro Seattle sprawls over about 9 times the land area of Metro Vancouver... so maybe there's just a lot more real estate on the market?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted May 11, 2010, 3:40 AM
SpikePhanta SpikePhanta is offline
Vancouverite
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug View Post
Seattle has an urban growth boundrary that is somehat lesss rigid than the ALR, similar geographic contraints, much higher incomes and a similar growth rate. How come its housing costs are so much less than Vancouver?
This
Quote:
Originally Posted by huenthar View Post
Metro Seattle sprawls over about 9 times the land area of Metro Vancouver... so maybe there's just a lot more real estate on the market?
Quote:
Originally Posted by llamaorama View Post
I know it is unpopular is build in the mountains because of the natural beauty, but in areas where it would be feasible maybe this is a solution? In Mexico and Latin America they build condo towers up the sides of mountains and its the middle class living in this sort of arrangement. You think such a thing might be possible outside Coquitlam? Like in those cities, cable cars or funiculars would be implemented as mass transit. The canyon with all the quarry pits, along Pipeline Road to the reservior is already pretty scarred, and it wouldn't be impossible to blast away a little more. What do you think?
The problem is if we build upwards it might do some harm to the water supply.

Also anyone else find it funny how about 85% of the ALR isn't even on proper farm land?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted May 11, 2010, 4:04 AM
Rusty Gull's Avatar
Rusty Gull Rusty Gull is offline
Site 8 Lives
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Vancouver's North Shore
Posts: 1,285
Quote:
Originally Posted by dleung View Post
Too many SFH neighbourhoods that oppose densification, that's all. Too many stupid suburban rules regarding minimum lane and sidewalk widths and setbacks, 80 foot separation mandated between high-rise towers, etc. The Metro can easily shrink in area and gain another couple million people, and it will look a hell of a lot prettier.


I have no problem with Ferry's argument about the ALR, but the real culprit is SFH neighbourhood Nimbyism - especially in places like Vancouver's West Side.

That's why I'm thrilled to see UBC go rogue on Metro Vancouver, and build density to its heart's content. Otherwise, it is astonishing how many low density neighbourhoods exist so close to Vancouver's city core.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted May 11, 2010, 4:28 AM
Stingray2004's Avatar
Stingray2004 Stingray2004 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: White Rock, BC (Metro Vancouver)
Posts: 3,145
Quote:
Originally Posted by EastVanMark View Post
For many, of course, the ALR is a sacred cow. They include Richmond city Coun. Harold Steves who, as an NDP MLA, was the architect of the ALR.

A beef farmer, Steves says we have a duty to preserve farmland so we can grow as much local food as possible. And those in the "localism" movement agree with him.
Steves is not only one of the biggest oddballs kicking around he's also the penultimate hypocrite. Steves was a Richmond NDP councillor, first elected in 1968, and he continues to serve as one today.

Nevertheless, Steves sold ~80 acres of prime Class 1 farmland (most of his pioneer family's farm) in the vicinity of namesake "Steves"ton Hwy and No. 1 Road to a relative of mine back in 1972 for SFD residential development (just prior to being elected as the NDP MLA for Richmond during the August, 1972 provincial election) . He had no interest in reselling the farmlands to a farmer. It was all about the $$$$$$$$.

As for the ALR, Class 1 lands have been sitting fallow in Delta, Richmond, and Surrey for decades. And yes they should remain in the ALR.

But huge swaths of Langley, etc. have much lower quality classes of ALR primarily utilized for horse and cow grazing.

Yes, the ALR certainly has had a huge financial impact upon land values in Metro Vancouver. When the ALR was first introduced in 1973, land values almost doubled overnight.

With another 1 million residents projected to reside in Metro Vancouver over the next few decades, where are they all gonna reside? Certainly not in NIMBY SFD Vancouver City proper.

Land use and the ALR, etc. are all gonna need to be revisted at some point in time during the future.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted May 11, 2010, 4:35 AM
cabotp cabotp is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 2,813
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rusty Gull View Post


I have no problem with Ferry's argument about the ALR, but the real culprit is SFH neighbourhood Nimbyism - especially in places like Vancouver's West Side.

That's why I'm thrilled to see UBC go rogue on Metro Vancouver, and build density to its heart's content. Otherwise, it is astonishing how many low density neighbourhoods exist so close to Vancouver's city core.
The west side of Vancouver is not dense, not including the marpole and kitsilano areas. The East side is actually quite dense.


Even if they were to abolish the ALR and develop on all of it. Ok sure it would drop the prices. But that would be only benefit. And even then once all that land is filled up prices would eventually rise again.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted May 11, 2010, 4:58 AM
Spork's Avatar
Spork Spork is offline
Shoebox Dweller
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,784
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ace Hobbins View Post
The lowermainland is quite possibly the least family friendly region in all of N. America. Sometimes I think city council wants everyone to live alone in a 1 bedroom suite the way new construction is going. Kind of scary and neo-communist.
What do you suggest that they do?
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > General Discussion
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:11 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.